Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
25CV117512: ABELLO vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL. 08/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; filed by CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al. (Defendant) CRS# 336035649329 in Department 23
Tentative Ruling - 08/05/2026 Ruben Sundeen
The Motion to Compel DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF DEANA ABELLO AND/OR HER ATTORNEY OF RECORD filed by CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al. on 02/26/2026 is Granted in Part.
Following the 6/22/2026 hearing on Defendant California Department of Transportations (Defendants) motion to compel Plaintiff to provide a privilege log and serve further responses to certain discovery requests, the Court continued this matter in part and ordered Defendant to file an amended separate statement that identifies which discovery requests are not subject to the 2020-present time limitation set forth in the Courts 12/15/2025 Amended Order. The purpose of the amended separate statement was to allow the Court to consider whether further responses are warranted for those requests. The Court did not invite any further briefing or filings. (See Order dated 6/25/2026.)
On 7/23/2026, Defendant filed an amended separate statement identifying nine form and special interrogatories for which it contends Plaintiffs responses improperly cited the 2020-present time limitation.
As discussed below, the remaining portion of Defendants motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:
General form interrogatories 2.2, 2.7, 2.8: These are narrowly framed interrogatories seeking relevant background information. The 2020-present timeframe does not apply to these requests. The motion is GRANTED as to these interrogatories. Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide amended supplemental responses that provide substantive information in response to these requests, without objecting based on the 2020-present timeframe limitation.
Employment form interrogatory 202.2: This is a more broadly framed question. It states, State all facts upon which you base your contention that you were qualified to perform any job which you contend was denied to you on account of unlawful discrimination. In response, Plaintiff cited the 2020-present timeframe but also provided a detailed substantive response. Although the Court finds that the 2020-present timeframe is appropriately applied to this question, the Court does not see a basis to order a supplemental response because Plaintiffs substantive response appears responsive and complete.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The motion is DENIED as to this interrogatory. 25CV117512: ABELLO vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL. 08/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; filed by CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al. (Defendant) CRS# 336035649329 in Department 23 Special interrogatory 486: This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to describe any occupational or professional training that Plaintiff has. Plaintiff asserted the 2020-present timeframe and stated, My Training history is assessable through the Caltrans Human Resources via Staff Central as they have efficient records and are easily assessable. Because this interrogatory seeks relevant background information, the 2020-timeframe limitation is not applicable Furthermore, Plaintiffs substantive response is non-responsive because it simply directs Defendant to access her [t]raining history through the Caltrans Human Resources site.
The motion is GRANTED as to this interrogatory. Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide an amended supplemental response that identifies her occupational or professional training, without objecting based on the 2020-present timeframe limitation.
Special interrogatories 487-488: These requests ask whether Plaintiff has ever been licensed by an agency to perform any profession, trade, or occupation; and whether Plaintiff has ever had a license that was revoked or suspended. In response to both, Plaintiff asserted the 2020-present timeframe but provided substantive responses. Because these interrogatories seek relevant background information, the 2020-present timeframe is not applicable. The Court cannot determine whether Plaintiffs substantive responses are fully responsive or are limited in time.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to these interrogatories. Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide amended supplemental responses, without objecting based on the 2020-present timeframe limitation. If Plaintiffs current substantive responses are complete and accurate despite the 2020-present timeframe objection, she may articulate this in her supplemental responses.
Special interrogatories 500, 509, and 513: These requests seek background information. Thus, the 2020-present timeframe is not applicable. The motion is GRANTED as to these interrogatories. Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide amended supplemental responses, without objecting based on the 2020-present timeframe limitation.
ORDER
The motion is DENIED as to employment form interrogatory 202.2 and GRANTED as to the remaining interrogatories identified in Defendants amended separate statement.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to serve supplemental responses, without asserting the 2020-present timeframe, consistent with this order, no later than 5:00 p.m. on 8/21/2026. Plaintiff may serve Defendants counsel by email.
*If a party does not timely contest the tentative ruling and appear at the hearing, the tentative ruling will become the order of the Court.*
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
25CV117512: ABELLO vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL. 08/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; filed by CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al. (Defendant) CRS# 336035649329 in Department 23 How to Contest a Tentative Ruling
Through the eCourt Public Portal
To contest a tentative ruling, notify the Court and all parties no later than 4:00 p.m. one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue by completing the following steps:
1. Log into the eCourt Public Portal.
2. Select Case Search.
3. Enter the case number and select Search.
4. Select the case name.
5. Select the Tentative Rulings tab.
6. Click Contest This Ruling.
7. Enter your name and reason for contesting.
8. Select Proceed.
You must also send notice to the department, Dept23@alameda.courts.ca.gov, which copies all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. one court day before the hearing.
Remote Appearance Information
For Department 23 Zoom appearance information, please visit:
https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov/?q=node/397/1152402
Please provide this information to any self-represented or opposing parties.
Parties must appear IN PERSON for Motions for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication.